No result found
2004-10-27
Cato Institute;
District of Columbia mayor Anthony Williams has convinced Major League Baseball to move the Montreal Expos to D.C. in exchange for the city's building a new ballpark. Williams has claimed that the new stadium will create thousands of jobs and spur economic development in a depressed area of the city.
Williams also claims that this can be accomplished without tax dollars from D.C. residents. Yet the proposed plan to pay for the stadium relies on some kind of tax increase that will likely be felt by D.C. residents.
Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any, positive effect on a city's economy. The net economic impact of professional sports in Washington, D.C., and the 36 other cities that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area.
A baseball team in D.C. might produce intangible benefits. Rooting for the team might provide satisfaction to many local baseball fans. That is hardly a reason for the city government to subsidize the team. D.C. policymakers should not be mesmerized by faulty impact studies that claim that a baseball team and a new stadium can be an engine of economic growth.
2008-03-04
John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development;
Heldrich Center Executive Director Kathy Krepcio presented "An Overview of U.S. Corporate Practices in the Employment of People with Disabilities: Spotlight on the Retail Sector" at a Disabilities Stakeholders Forum in January 2008.
2008-09-16
Cato Institute;
The expansion of international trade has provided considerable benefits to the United States and its trading partners. Yet the growth of trade also raises concerns about its impact on domestic firms and their workers. This study surveys the economic research on the causes of expanded international trade, the benefits of trade, the impact of trade on employment and wages, and the cost of international trade restrictions. The findings include the following: Income growth accounts for two-thirds of the growth in global trade in recent decades, trade liberalization accounts for one-quarter, and lower transportation costs make up the remainder. Trade expansion has fueled faster growth and raised incomes in countries that have liberalized. A 1-percentage point gain in trade as a share of the economy raises per capita income by 1 percent. Global elimination of all barriers to trade in goods and services would raise global income by $2 trillion and U.S. income by almost $500 billion. Competition from trade delivers lower prices and more product variety to consumers. Americans are $300 billion better off today because of the greater product variety from imports. International trade directly affects only 15 percent of the U.S. workforce. Most job displacement occurs in sectors that are not engaged in global competition. Net payroll employment in the United States has grown by 36 million in the past two decades, alongside a dramatic increase in imports of goods and services. Expanding trade does not explain most of the growing gap between wages earned by skilled and unskilled workers. The relative decline in unskilled wages is mainly caused by technological changes that reward greater skills. Trade barriers impose large, net costs on the U.S. economy. The cost to the economy per job saved in protected industries far exceeds the wages paid to workers in those jobs
2006-06-22
John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development;
This PowerPoint deck was presented by Kathy Krepcio, executive director of the Heldrich Center, at the International Public Management Association for Human Resources - Eastern Region's conference, "Human Capital at the Capitol: Achieving Monumental Results." The conference was held in Washington, D.C. on June 20, 2006.
2006-11-01
Center for Economic and Policy Research;
This paper forecasts that weakness in the housing market is likely to push the economy into a recession in 2007. Economist Dean Baker provides predictions for GDP, job and wage growth; inflation (CPI); investment; exports and imports; and more.
2007-06-01
Center for Economic and Policy Research;
This paper examines the U.S. economy's sustainable rate of "usable productivity" growth over the 1995-2005 period with that of other OECD countries. Since productivity growth cannot be directly translated into improvements in living standards, the authors made two technical adjustments to measured productivity growth to assess the rate at which the economy is allowing for rises in living standards: 1) A net measure of output (removing changes in the share of output that go to replace depreciated capital) and 2) A consumption deflator instead of an output deflator to assess the rate at which the economy can provide for increases in living standards. When these two adjustments are made to measured productivity growth in the United States and other wealthy countries, the performance of the United States looks relatively worse in both the period from 1980 to 1995 and also in the period from 1995 to 2005. In fact, these adjustments make the rate of "usable productivity" growth slightly slower in the United States than in other wealthy countries over the period from 1995 to 2005.
2006-12-01
Center for Economic and Policy Research;
European employees work fewer hours per year -- and use less energy per person -- than their American counterparts. This report compares the European and U.S. models of labor productivity and energy consumption. It finds that if all countries worked as many hours per week as U.S. workers do, the world would consume 15 to 30 percent more energy by 2050 than it would by following Europe's model.
2007-05-14
Cato Institute;
The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities -- expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" -- in fiscal year 2006. The definition of business subsidies used in this report is broader than that used by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, which recently put the costs of direct business subsidies at $57 billion in 2005. For the purposes of this study, "corporate welfare" is defined as any federal spending program that provides payments or unique benefits and advantages to specific companies or industries. Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs continue to fund the wealthiest farmers. Because the corporate welfare state transcends any specific agency -- and therefore any specific congressional committee -- one way to reform or terminate those programs would be through a corporate welfare reform commission (CWRC). That commission could function like the successful military base closure commission. The CWRC would compose a list of corporate welfare programs to eliminate and then present that list to Congress, which would be required to hold an up-or-down vote on the commission's proposal.
2008-03-18
John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development;
This report provides an overview of practices and strategies taking place in U.S. corporations that are considered promising practices in the recruitment, hiring, and retention of people with disabilities. It explores the trends and needs of the retail sector and also examines how retail employers are meeting their workforce needs by hiring people with disabilities.
2009-03-19
Center for Economic and Policy Research;
In 1982, the United States experienced the highest annual unemployment rate since the Great Depression -- 9.7 percent. In principle, that rate is directly comparable to the 8.1 percent seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for February 2009, and suggests that current unemployment is still not as bad as it was in 1982.
The official unemployment rate, however, masks two important differences between the unemployment rate in 1982 and today. The first difference is demographic. In 1982, the US population was substantially younger than it is today. Even in an otherwise identical economy, we would expect a younger population to have a higher unemployment rate than an older population would. The second difference is statistical. The main government survey used to measure the unemployment rate -- the Current Population Survey (CPS) reaches a smaller share of the population today than it did in 1982, and is especially likely to miss people who are not employed. As a result, the official unemployment rate understates the unemployment rate relative to 1982.
2015-02-09
Center for Economic and Policy Research;
This report argues that a key driver in rising inequality and a decline in the employment to population ratio is conscious economic policy, with a particularly important and under-appreciated role for macroeconomic policy. The paper first demonstrates the remarkable "flexibility" of U.S. labor markets relative to the situation in other rich economies. The paper then links this policy-induced flexibility to high and rising inequality and shows that such flexibility ceased long ago to contribute --if it ever did-- to greater job creation.
2014-10-24
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission;
Research has shown that the synergy effects between clusters result in higher productivity; encourage knowledge spillover and innovation; and facilitate the formation of new businesses. This report evaluates the importance and vitality of key regional clusters by considering total employment, location quotients, and the number of basic jobs for clusters of traded industries, as defined by the U.S. Cluster Mapping Project. The report also provides a shift-share analysis to identify how much of the regional employment change in each cluster was the result of regional competiveness rather than national or industry-specific trends, which can shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of specific industries. Finally, the report illustrates the locations of employers in each of 13 basic clusters, using data from the National Establishments Time Series (NETS) database.
